Slashdot Mirror
Government to Eavesdrop on Lawyer-Client Conversations
An Anonymous Coward writes: "This CNN article outlines the justice department's plans to start monitoring lawyer-client communications of detainees. The decision was made by the justice department without any public debate or the involvement of the Senate or Congress. It's astonishing how easily a basic civil right such as the right to counsel is taken away!" The ACLU is, predictably, opposed.
This is completely useless against terrorists. Terrorists don't hire lawyers and chat about their actions beforehand. Terrorists plan long and quietly, and then without warning even their friends and roommates, they blow shit up.
The only excuse for policies such as this is to enable fishing expeditions where people "suspected" of something can have their rights and privacy stripped away from them without them even knowing it.
I dont know if you know this, but the I remember the 'BAR' made a new resolution that if a lawyer knows his 'client' is actively breaking the law that he needs to report him. It seems that there seems to be a shift from the wildly permissive atitude of a lawyer-client privacy to a more balanced view, but if this CNN report is true, then who isnt safe from being 'listened' in on, without any due process.
Sigs are dangerous coy things
I'm hazy on the subject, but I believe that there is no constitutional right to lawyer-client privacy. I'm under the impression that, like therapist confidentiality, it's mostly a matter of common consensus -- the bar association and the government have simply agreed to uphold this as a tradition. IIRC, there was some great contoversy last year when the bar association decided to relax its policy to allow lawyers to step forward with privileged information which presented a clear and direct threat to the safety of others.
Is my understanding correct? Is there any consitutional protection, or protection in federal law, of attorney-client privilege?
Is it time to propose a new consitutional amendment?
I would love to see how the right to counsel is being taken away. As far as I can tell, the only 'right' being taken away is that of privacy, which is automatically given up when you're a federal detainee. You should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Now, if you'd like to discuss how attorney-client privelege is being taken away, that'd be something different. But please don't spread FUD that civil rights to counsel are being taken away. That's absolutely ludicrous.
Please, also note how exactly the information is going to be used.
- "No information that is protected by attorney-client privilege may be used for prosecution," the statement said. "There is not protection however, for communications related to the client's ongoing or contemplated illegal acts."
There's massive differences between the two. Get them straight before you whine about terrorist's rights being taken away.The right to counsel implies (and has a LONG standing precedent and bunches of laws to reinforce) a "privacy" called attorney-client privilege. That is, that anything said between the attorney and his client cannot be told to anyone. Otherwise, the justice system would simply amount to "arrest individual, bug the room he and his lawyer converse in, and use those tapes as evidence."
The biggest problem I see with this is that even if the DOJ followed the rules and didn't misuse the information, there's no way for a defendant in criminal prosecution to be sure. If you are being prosecuted and you know that your every conversation with your attorney is being listened too, how forthcoming will you be with them? You can't assume that the DOJ isn't breaking their own rules, so you clam up. The end result is that defense attorneys may have less information to work with and will be unable to build a proper defense for their clients. Eventually the courts will probably tell the DOJ they can't do this but in the mean time, how many people's legal cases will be effected by this new policy.
I find it bitterly ironic that we here Bush and crew saying that we are fighting for our way of life and for civilization, yet at the same time, they are doing their best to damage the freedoms that are key to that way of life. They say we need to go on with life as usual and not let the terrorists effect us, but it's not like they are leading by example here.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This only applys to people who are granted a special administrative measure which applys to less than a tenth of a percent of people. And only to people who the AG says "reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a particular inmate may use communication with attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of terrorism".
/. sensationalism at work.
I don't agree that they should be doing this in the first place, but it's not for everyone. I guess this is just more
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
"The Justice Department said less than one-tenth of 1 percent of federal inmates are subject to the provision that allows such monitoring. It pointed out most inmates subject to special administrative measure have no relation to the terrorism investigation, spawned by the deadly September 11 hijackings and attacks."
I'm not saying I agree with this, but at least keep in mind that this is limited in scope. Yeah, yeah, slippery slope and all that, but while you're fighting against stuff it's important to realize what you're fighting against.
This is not "let's completely throw away client-attorney privilege", it's "let's recognize that sometimes national security takes precedence". You still may disagree with this, but at least fight the correct target.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Hello, former Attorney General Ed "by definition, all suspects are guilty" Meese!
We are not talking about people convicted of a crime. We are talking about people who have been DETAINED pending trial... possibly even without formal charges filed yet. These are people who can't make bail, who are considered flight risks, etc., but not convicted of any crime.
And while there are some practical reasons to support this change (esp. if the DoJ establishes a "wall" between the people who listen to these conversations for insight into future acts of terrorism and those who prosecute the individuals for any crimes previously committed), it has one huge constitutional drawback - it establishes two standards of treatment for defendants. If you're detained, the DoJ can eavesdrop on your conversations with your lawyer. If you can post bail, they can't. (Think they'll be able to bug lawyer's offices? ha ha ha ha!)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
99 civil rights on the wall, 99 civil rights, take on down, throw it away, 98 civil rights on the wall ....
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
When will things have gone far enough to justify a revolution? We are taliking about basic rights and freedoms here! These are rights and freedoms that PEOPLE DIED FOR!!!!Earlier today there was an anouncement on slashdot that now even math can be patented. Governmnet and corperations can now TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH OUR OWN THOUGHTS AND IDEAS!!!Now we will be loosing our right to laywer clien confidentiality! This is argualby one of the most basic rights that we have! so when will the relolution come? how much longer can this go on? I say that a revolution would be moraly acceptable now. I do not think that that would be the most likely way to achieve the goal of getting our freedoms back. Nor do I think it would be the best way. I do however think that RIGHT NOW a revolution would be acceptable. That is scarry! If and when the revolution comes I suggest that the DOJ is the first against the wall. Then the Republicans. Then The Democrats. Then Microsoft! Wohoo! Just what I think.
But as the CNN article states, this monitoring has many restrictions. First, the detainee must be informed of it, so there is no potential for the type of abuse which would make all detainees afraid to speak to their attorney; everyone would know when they were subject to such monitoring. Second, and even more importantly, this monitoring cannot be used as evidence against the detainee. The summary doesn't mention this, and this is crucial. The monitoring can only be used for informational purposes, to stop other crimes. And it is common that detainees communicate with the outside world with their lawyers, and I'm sure we can all believe there are situations where the detainee is communicating details of future crimes to their associates.
I guess one thing is true is that this probably has less to do with terrorism than the administration would have us believe. It seems as though this is something which would be more effective against organized crime than terrorism.
But once you actually read the article, this isn't such a big deal, and, in the grand scheme of things, might even be a good idea.
Come on, give it up, that's
... because they're PRISONERS. As far as I'm concerned, they have no rights whatsoever. They are the ones that violated OUR rights in one way or another. They are detainees, NOT convicted of anything, and in general NOT EVEN CHARGED with anything. One man was held for three weeks because he called the FBI and told them that he had rented a room to one of the hijackers for a while...
I guess landlords are automatically criminals, eh?
That move...is necessary to help "prevent further terrorist acts,"
The article goes on to state
The Justice Department said less than one-tenth of 1 percent of federal inmates are subject to the provision that allows such monitoring. It pointed out most inmates subject to special administrative measure have no relation to the terrorism investigation, spawned by the deadly September 11 hijackings and attacks.
That prevents further terrorist acts, how? By monitoring non-terrorists? I'm gonna go prevent terrorism by washing my car.
Did you read the article or are you just posting inflamatory material for kicks. First, the Government never said Council was being denied. Second, they put up huge road blocks to insure that Government lawyers don't have access to privledged information. Third, they tell the prisoners that this particular action is being taken. All of this is safeguarded by a requirement that they have to show to a judge that there is a good chance the prisoner knows something about future terrorist attacks.
Not to mention that if a future terrorist attack did happen and they could have prevented it by listening in on the interviews, loss to life could be catastrophic.
Remember the life you save, could be your own.
Beware the wood elf!!!
Its great that I have the right to say this isnt it? Well along the same lines, I have some other freedoms, that the government is supposed to protect (not provide mind you), as well. See these if nothing else:
This is a clear abuse of power against our rights.
Pull your head out of the police state cloud, a loss of freedom does not ensure greater safety in general for the populace.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Go read 1984 by George Orwell. You're innocent until proven guilty. If you're innocent, there's no reason to spy on you.
First, note the link on the attached story: this is a *proposed* rule, not an accepted one.
Second, the attorney-client privilege is one of the most strongly-defended privacy rights. While it is true that attorney-client privilege does not protect prospective crimes, in order to break the privilege, the government must be able to convince a judge that there is a very strong likelihood of the commision of a crime in the near future. Being in jail, even for a heinous crime, is not grounds for a strong suspicion.
Bottom line: They may try this, but the first judge who sees it will throw it out.
People have rights because they are human, not because they have been found not guilty. Humans have rights as defined per the bill of rights or other wonderful US declarations that are for everyone as humans. As rights. So fuck you for supporting this police state to come. This isnt america anymore this is America (TM) thanks to dickheads like you.
Please see this post, I reneged what I had said in total error. I was speaking out of ignorance.
5 46 469 for the goatsex weary
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23590&cid=2
how different is this from the terrorists view; in that they also feel that the end justifies ANY means?
does the end really justify ANY means? isn't how you get there just as important as the end result, itself?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
i.e. those who it's damn well likely have committed a crime.
You misspelled 'those who it's damn well likely the police can make a profit from the arrest of.'
HTH
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
So you want to throw the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption out the window then, huh? Why do we even bother to pretend we're a democracy anymore? Assholes like you want to give all authority over to the government without assigning any accountability or oversight. We'll just trust them to always do what's right? You're ignorant and more of a danger to the American way of life than any terrorist out there.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Who's at war? The US isn't. There has been no declaration of war, so the government cannot take on wartime powers. Truman found that out when he tried to force striking miners back to work during Korea.
And even if we were at war, what make you believe that they'd repeal these repressive laws and civil rights violations after the war?
The federal government is using this as an excuse to move one more step towards the police state.
... just ask any Native American how good the word of our government is.
Expect COMPLETE PARITY between the laws governing "terrorism" and the war on "drugs".
The irony is, the people pushing for these laws are the same people who screamed bloody murder about Ruby Ridge, or Waco Texas. Now it's their turn.
And since ANONYMOUS TIPS can be used to gain a search warrent, I sincerely doubt the claim "none of this is admissible". Just launder you ill-gained evidence through an anonymous tip, get a warrant, and use that evidence instead. There are enough loopholes to fit a fleet of 18-wheelers through.
What makes you think the police, Federal or otherwise, don't already try and listen in on lawyer-client communications? I'm sure they get all sorts of hints and tidbits. They can't use the recordings in court, of course; all they have to do is make up a new train of investigation that (re)leads them to the evidence.
The only difference now is that they no longer have to go to the trouble.
</paranoia>
Huh? We just passed the laws that would let us bug the lawyers' offices. (Think about the implication of "roving wiretap" on a suspect - and the idea that you might want to "wiretap" the things he says using vocal cords and air as a transmission medium. In order to minimize the risk of accidentally infringing upon the lawyer's right not to be wiretapped, you use some sort of voiceprint tech to record only the criminal's voice, not the voice of his lawyer, or the voices of the lawyer's other clients.)
Or did all landsharks suddently become counterintelligence experts, equipped with s00per-s33kr1t goggles of bug-detection?
No, it means they would have been convicted, had the prosecution been aware of the defence's legal strategy in advance.
("Your Honor, we present this tape, during which the defendant admits responsibility for the crime to his landshark, and proposes an insanity defence. We're filing charges against the lawyer for harboring a fugitive, on the grounds that a lawyer, once he becomes aware of the guilt of his client, must either withdraw from the case or turn the fucker in!")
There's been quite a few cases already where they have been against allowing kids to pray in schools (which kind of seems like a civil liberty to me!)
Should a group with the name "American Civil Liberties Union" be for or against allowing children to worship as they wish?
It seems to me that a reading of the ACLU position on school prayer gives you the answer - the ACLU is very much in favor of letting children worship as they wish. Or not, if they don't wish to.
Here is the ACLU position:
If a child in public school wishes to say grace before eating a meal in the school cafeteria, or carry a bible to school to read in between classes, she has the right now under the First Amendment to do so. That is religious freedom.
But if the school conducts an official grace before meals so that every student in the cafeteria is subjected to it whether she believes in it or not, that is not permitted by the First Amendment because it reflects official government endorsement or sponsorship of religion, and imposes religious beliefs on children whose families may not share them. This is true even if the grace ceremony is "student initiated." Individual rights means that any student can say grace, but no student can be subjected to a religious ceremony because the majority outvotes her. That is not religious freedom.
Troll alert: Please remain calm. The Slashdot emergency response system would like to remind you that trolls feed on fire and recommends that you put away your flamethrowers and move along.
I read the internet for the articles.
So you think it's reasonable for a guy who stole an apple because he was homeless and starving to get thrown into jail with convicted murderers, ass-raped at their leisure, beaten up and left dying or dead. Right. Perhaps we should remove judges and sentencing entirely, and simply throw anyone convicted of anything out on the street with a sign saying "Do with me whatever you feel like, I'm a criminal" on their back?
It is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. But hey, this is what the concept of bail is all about, right? In most western legal systems, I believe that bail is usually granted reasonably swiftly unless the accused poses a potential danger in some way. At least here in the UK, there are very strict limits on how long the police can keep you detained without charging you, too, and plenty of lawyers around to remind them of the fact.
The thing that really annoys me is the way people are treated when they are tried and then found not guilty. As far as I'm concerned, at that point, they are as innocent as if the charge had never been brought. And yet still, accused rapists (who are found not guilty in a trial) have their names published, while the accusers (whose accusations have been shown to be false) have hidden behind a mask of anonymity.
It even happens in minor cases, too. I was a witness in a trial about a road accident a while back. The defendant was found not guilty of a driving offence, and was able to claim some expenses from the court, but could not claim any lost income (in spite of having missed several days of work to attend court, partly due to the court's own incompetence at scheduling the case, and consequent postponements).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Such intelligence could not be admissible in court, but it just might stop the next attack.
There is no forfeiture of rights here.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
If it makes you feel better to mod me down for stating this fact, fine. But be aware governments are not benign entities. There are some truly evil people out there, and they don't all live in the deserts of Afghanistan.
Of course it wouldn't. That doesn't mean the listeners can't use the information against you in other ways-- for instance, as a lead in an investigation that eventually digs up other-- admissable-- evidence. It's a prosecutor's dream, having somebody leaking you transcripts of the defendant's conversations with their lawyer. Or imagine trying to come to a plea agreement, with somebody listening in? It's like playing poker with a mirror on the ceiling.
Of course, the defendant and his lawyer will know that they're being monitored. Which will have the effect of stifling attorney-client communication, and seriously damaging the clients' ability to defend himself. Then, as another poster mentioned, you'll have two classes of defendant, with differing abilities to make a case-- those who can afford bail, and those who can't.
Another problem: legitimacy of evidence. The Fifth amendment gives an individual the right to remain silent if he/she believes the testimony might be self-incriminating. If the cops force an individual to talk, they ultimately forfeit not only the testimony, but any evidence that results. This law is troublesome because it becomes very difficult to determine what evidence is the result of the recorded testimony, and what is just happenstance (eg, did a cop find the murder weapon in an alley by chance, or was the discovery the result of testimony recorded by the eavesdroppers?) I would actually imagine that this is going to be a messy thing for both sides of the case. There are reasons why cops don't bug people's houses without a warrant, chief among them that they risk having legitimate evidence supressed based on the possibility that it was the result of the illegal bugging.
I have no idea how this is going to work out. Who is the organization doing the listening? What if the organization doing the eavesdropping uses the tapes to find evidence pertaining to the case-- will they be content with the fact that it's all going to be inadmissable? Will the recordings they make be available to the courts and defendant in order to determine whether evidence collected might have resulted from a leak in the "firewall"? And can we really trust this system to work?
In a nutshell, there's a lot of reason to panic. And it bugs me that people don't realize this; it's a lot more than a baby step in the wrong direction, and the safeguards provided are not terribly strong.
Incidentally, one should not assume that Ashcroft has a great interest in creating constitutional policy. I get the impression that he's adopting something of an "act first, let the courts sort it out later" attitude to a lot of issues. Any information gathered between the time this policy takes effect and the day a court slaps an injunction on him will still be useful-- the courts can't "undo" the damage caused, as it will likely be intangible.